Transcript of "EB-1C-multinational execs--aao decisions posted to date in 2013"

1.
EB-1C Multinational Executives:
AAO Non-Precedents Posted Thus Far in 2013
Compiled by Joseph P. Whalen (September 1, 2013)
LINK TO DECISION RESULTS, EXCERPTS, &COMMENTS
MAR092013_01B4203.pdf SUMMARILY DISMISSED [TSC]
The petitioner is engaged in farming, consulting,
and it seeks to employ the beneficiary as its Chief
Executive Officer. Accordingly, the petitioner
endeavors to classify the beneficiary as an
employment-based immigrant pursuant to section
203(b)(l)(C) of the Immigration and Nationality
Act (the Act), 8 U.S.C. § 1153(b) (1)(C), as a
multinational executive or manager.
On November 21, 2011, the director denied the
petition concluding the petitioner failed to
establish that it would employ the beneficiary in a
managerial or executive capacity.
* * * * *
In regards to the director's conclusion that the
petitioner failed to submit sufficient evidence to
show the beneficiary's eligibility for the immigrant
petition, counsel for the petitioner fails to identify
erroneous conclusion of law or statement of fact for
the appeal. The petitioner failed to provide any
additional .......... [evidence]...[sic] to overcome the
director's concerns. Going on record without
supporting documentary evidence is not sufficient
for purposes of meeting the burden of proof in
these proceedings. Matter of Soffici, 22 I&N Dec.
158, 165 (Comm'r 1998) (citing Matter of Treasure
Craft of California, 14 I&N Dec. 190 (Reg. Comm'r
1972)).
1

2.
On the Form I-290B, the petitioner the petitioner
noted that USCIS approved an L-1A visa that had
been previously filed on behalf of the beneficiary.
The AAO acknowledges that USCIS has previously
approved an L-1A petition filed by the petitioner on
behalf of the instant beneficiary. It must be noted
that many I-140 immigrant petitions are denied
after USCIS approves prior nonimmigrant I-129
L-1 petitions. See, e.g., Q Data Consulting, Inc. v.
INS, 293 F. Supp. 2d 25 (D.D.C. 2003); IKEA US v.
US Dept. of Justice, 48 F. Supp. 2d 22; Fedin
Brothers Co. Ltd. v. Sava, 724 F. Supp. 1103.
Examining the consequences of an approved
petition, there is a significant difference between a
nonimmigrant L-1A visa classification, which
allows an alien to enter the United States
temporarily, and an immigrant E-13 visa petition,
which permits an alien to apply for permanent
residence in the United States and, if granted,
ultimately apply for naturalization as a United
States citizen. Cf. §§ 204 and 214 of the Act, 8
U.S.C. §§ 1154 and 1184; see also § 316 of the Act, 8
U.S.C. § 1427. Because USCIS spends less time
reviewing I-129 nonimmigrant petitions than I-140
immigrant petitions, some nonimmigrant L-1A
petitions are simply approved in error. Q Data
Consulting, Inc. v. INS, 293 F. Supp. 2d at 29-30;
see also 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(1)(14)(i) (requiring no
supporting documentation to file a petition to
extend an L-1A petition's validity).
Despite the previously approved petition, USCIS
does not have any authority to confer an
immigration benefit when the petitioner fails to
2

3.
meet its burden of proof in a subsequent petition.
See section 291 of the Act. Each petition filing is a
separate· proceeding with a separate record. See 8
C.F.R. § 103.8(d). In making a determination of
statutory eligibility, USCIS is limited to the
information contained in that individual record of
proceeding. See 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b)(16)(ii). Based
on the lack of required evidence of eligibility in the
current record, the AAO finds that the director was
justified in departing from the previous
nonimmigrant petition approval by denying the
instant petition.
As noted by counsel, a company's size alone,
without taking into account the reasonable needs
of the organization, may not be the determining
factor in denying a visa to a multinational manager
or executive. Section 10l(a)(44)(C) of the Act, 8
U.S.C. § 1101(a)(44) (C). Instead, an executive's
duties must be the critical factor. However' based
on the current record, the AAO is unable to
determine whether the claimed managerial duties
constitute the majority of the beneficiary's duties,
or whether the beneficiary primarily performs non-
managerial administrative or operational duties.
The petitioner's description of the beneficiary's job
duties does not establish what proportion of the
beneficiary's duties is managerial in nature, and
what proportion is actually non- managerial. See
Republic of Transkei v. INS, 923 F.2d 175, 177
(D.C. Cir. 1991).
MAR092013_02B4203.pdf
This case should be studied to
see what NOT to do when
preparing your evidence and
APPEAL DISMISSED [TSC]
The petitioner is a Florida corporation that is
engaged in information technology consulting and
3

4.
especially the beneficiary’s
job description.
development, and seeks to employ the beneficiary
as its President/ CEO. Accordingly, the petitioner
endeavors to classify the beneficiary as an
employment-based immigrant pursuant to section
203(b)(1)(C) of the Immigration and Nationality
Act (the Act), 8 U.S.C. § 1153(b)(l)(C), as a
multinational executive or manager.
On May 15, 2012, the director denied the petition
concluding that the petitioner failed to establish
that the beneficiary's proposed employment with
the U.S. entity would be within a qualifying
managerial or executive capacity.
* * * * *
The issue that will be addressed in this proceeding
calls for an analysis of the beneficiary's job duties.
Specifically, the AAO will examine the record to
determine whether the petitioner submitted
sufficient evidence to establish that the beneficiary
would be employed in the United States in a
qualifying managerial or executive capacity.
* * * * *
In examining the executive or managerial capacity
of the beneficiary, USCIS will look first to the
petitioner's description of the job duties. See 8
C.F.R. § 204.5(1)(5). Published case law clearly
supports the pivotal role of a clearly defined job
description, as the actual duties themselves the
true nature of the employment. Fedin Bros, Co.,
Ltd. v. Sava, 724 F. Supp. 1103, 1108 (E.D.N.Y.
1989), aff’d, 905 F.2d 41 (2d. Cir. 1990); see also 8
C.F.R. § 204.5(1)(5). That being said, USCIS
reviews the totality of the record, which includes
not only the beneficiary's job description, but also
takes into account the nature of the petitioner's
business, the employment and remuneration of
employees, as well as the job descriptions of the
4

5.
beneficiary's subordinates, if any, and facts
contributing to a complete understanding of a
beneficiary's actual role within a given entity.
* * * * *
Due to the overly general and vague list of job
duties, the AAO is unable to gain a meaningful
understanding of how much time the beneficiary
will spend performing qualifying tasks versus those
that would be deemed non-qualifying.
The above case should be studied to see
what NOT to do when preparing your
evidence and especially the beneficiary’s
job description.
MAR092013_03B4203.pdf APPEAL DISMISSED [NSC]
The petitioner is a California limited liability
company that is engaged in agriculture, and seeks
to employ the beneficiary as its vice president.
Accordingly, the petitioner endeavors to classify
beneficiary as an employment-based immigrant
pursuant to section 203(b)(1)(C) of the
Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act), 8
U.S.C. § 1153(b)(1)(C), as a multinational executive
or· manager.
On August 23, 2011, the director denied the
petition concluding that the petitioner failed to
establish that the petitioner has a qualifying
relationship with the beneficiary’s foreign
employer.
On appeal, counsel disputes the director's findings
provides an appellate brief laying out the grounds
for challenging the denial.
5

6.
* * * * *
The language of the statute is specific in limiting
this provision to only those executives and
managers who have previously worked for a firm,
corporation or other legal entity, or an affiliate or
subsidiary of that entity, and who are coming to
the United States to work for the same entity, or its
affiliate or subsidiary.
A United States employer may file a petition on
Form 1-140 for classification of an alien under
section 203(b) (1)(C) of the Act as a multinational
executive or manager. No labor certification is
required for this classification. The prospective
employer in the United States must furnish a job
offer in the form of a statement which indicates
that the alien is to be employed in the United
States in a managerial or executive capacity. Such
a statement must clearly describe the duties to be
performed by the alien.
The issue that will be addressed in this proceeding
is whether the petitioner submitted sufficient
evidence to establish that it has a qualifying
relationship with the beneficiary’s foreign
employer. To establish a qualifying relationship
under the Act and the regulations, the petitioner
must show that the beneficiary's foreign employer
and the proposed U.S. employer are the same
employer (i.e. a U.S. entity with a foreign office) or
related as a "parent and subsidiary" or as
"affiliates." See generally § 203(b)(1)(C) of the Act,
8 U.S.C. § 1153(b)(1)(C); see also 8 C.F.R §
204.5(j)(2) (providing definitions of the terms
"affiliate" and "subsidiary").
* * * * *
6

7.
Although counsel claims that the petitioning
company and the foreign company are both
majority owned and controlled by [REDACTED &
REDACTED] this familial relationship does not
constitute a qualifying relationship under the
regulations. See Ore v. Clinton, 675 F.Supp.2d 217,
226 (D.C. Mass. 2009) (finding that the petitioner
and the foreign company did not qualify as
"affiliates" "within the precise definition set out in
the regulations at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2 (l)(1)(ii)(L)(1),
despite petitioner's claims that the two companies
"are owned and controlled by the same individuals,
specifically the Ore family").
MAR092013_04B4203.pdf APPEAL DISMISSED [NSC]
The petitioner claims to be a Florida corporation
that seeks to employ the beneficiary in the United
States a its president. Accordingly, the petitioner
endeavors to classify the beneficiary as an
employment-based immigrant pursuant to section
203(b)(1)(C) of the Immigration and Nationality
Act (the Act), 8 U.S.C. § 1153(b)(1)(C), as a
multinational executive or manager.
Among the documents that were submitted in
support of the Form 1-140 was a statement dated
September 29, 2008 and signed by [REDACTED]
in her capacity as the company administrator.
[REDACTED] stated that the petitioner had four
employees, including the beneficiary, and
described the petitioner's business as one involving
the import and export of office supplies, printers,
and copier parts. The petitioner also provided
additional evidence in the form of corporate and
business documents.
7

8.
The director reviewed the petitioner's submissions
and determined that the petition did not warrant
approval. The director therefore issued a request
for evidence (RFE) dated February 5, 2010
informing the petitioner of various evidentiary
deficiencies. The RFE included requests for a more
detailed job description pertaining to the
beneficiary's proposed employment with a list of
the beneficiary's job duties and their time
allocations, the petitioner's organizational chart
depicting the company's staffing structure and the
beneficiary’s placement therein, and job
descriptions of the beneficiary's subordinates in
each entity. The petitioner was asked to support its
statements with documentary evidence. The
director also cautioned the petitioner to refrain
from paraphrasing the statutory language in place
of the beneficiary's job description and to
provide specific examples of duties the beneficiary
would perform that meet the statutory definition of
managerial or executive capacity.
The petitioner's response to the RFE included a
statement' dated March 15, 2010 and signed by the
petitioner's sales manager. The statement included
an overview of the beneficiary's U.S. employment
and job descriptions pertaining to the sales
manager and administrator positions. The
petitioner also provided a copy of its organizational
chart from March 18, 2009 depicting a total of five
employees-the beneficiary, an administrator, a
secretary, a sales manager, and a sales person--as
well as the petitioner's 2009 tax return showing
$62,400 paid to the beneficiary in officer
compensation and an additional $67,152 paid in
employee wages and salaries.
8

9.
After considering the petitioner's response, the
director determined that the petitioner failed to
establish that the beneficiary would be employed
with the U.S. entity in a qualifying managerial or
executive capacity. The director found the
beneficiary's job description to be lacking the
detailed information that was requested in the RFE
and further determined that a significant portion
of the beneficiary's time would be allocated to tasks
of a non-qualifying nature. In light of these adverse
findings, the director issued a decision dated June
1, 2010 denying the petition.
On appeal, counsel provides a brief in which he
disputes the director's findings by reiterating
information that was previously provided with
regard to the beneficiary's job description and the
job descriptions of the beneficiary's subordinates.
Counsel points to the beneficiary's discretionary
authority, senior position within the petitioner's
organizational hierarchy, and his oversight of
managerial and supervisory subordinates.
The AAO finds that counsel's statements are not
persuasive and thus fail to overcome the director’s
findings. A comprehensive discussion of the AAO's
findings is provided below.
AAO dissection, discussion and analysis of
the evidence continues for the next 2 1/2
pages. Please take the time to read it.
9

10.
MAR092013_05B4203.pdf APPEAL DISMISSED [TSC]
The petitioner; an electronics import-export
company, seeks to employ the beneficiary as its
manager. Accordingly, the petitioner endeavors to
classify the beneficiary as an employment-based
immigrant pursuant to section 203(b)(1)(C) of the
Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act), 8
U.S.C. § 1153(b)(1)(C), as a multinational executive
or manager.
On March 13, 2012 the director denied the petition
concluding that the petitioner failed to establish:
(1) that it will employ the beneficiary in a primarily
managerial or executive capacity; and (2) that it
has the ability to pay the beneficiary the proffered
wage.
On appeal, the petitioner asserts that the director
substantially minimized and overlooked evidence
establishing the beneficiary's and petitioner's
eligibility, therefore the decision was incorrect. The
petitioner submits a brief in support of the appeal.
The Director found two reasons to deny
but AAO found two more for a grand total of
four reasons for denial.
APR012013_01B4203.pdf APPEAL DISMISSED [NSC]
The petitioner is a California limited· liability
company that seeks to employ the beneficiary as
managing director. Accordingly, the petitioner
endeavors to classify the beneficiary as an
employment-based immigrant pursuant to section
203(b)(1)(C) of the Immigration and Nationality
Act (the Act), 8 U.S.C. § 1153(b)(1)(C), as a
multinational executive or manager.
10

11.
The petitioner states that it is engaged in sale and
trade of automobiles and the food industry, and
indicates that it has three employees. In support of
the Form 1-140 the petitioner submitted a letter
from counsel dated April 28, 2011 which provided
some of the beneficiary's expected duties with the
U.S. company. The petitioner also provided
evidence in the form of corporate and financial
documents pertaining to the beneficiary's foreign
employer.
There was an RFE with inadequate
response, then on appeal additional
evidence was submitted BUT....
During adjudication of the appeal, evidence came
to light that the petitioner in this matter had a
suspended corporate status in the State of
California. Therefore, on January 8, 2013, the AAO
notified the petitioner that a review of the
petitioner's status at the business search website
maintained by the California Secretary of State
indicated that the petitioner was suspended....
This one is complicated but well worth
taking the time to read for yourself.
APR012013_02B4203.pdf MOTION DISMISSED [TSC]
The petitioner is a Maryland corporation engaged
in the business of international trade. It seeks to
employ the beneficiary as its president.
Accordingly, the petitioner endeavors to classify
the beneficiary as an employment-based
immigrant pursuant to section 203(b)(l)(C) of the
11

12.
Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act), 8
U.S.C. § 1153(b)(l)(C), as a multinational executive
or manager.
The director denied the petition concluding that
the petitioner failed to establish that the
beneficiary would be employed in a managerial or
executive capacity.
The petitioner appealed the denial disputing the
director’s findings. The AAO dismissed the appeal,
rejecting prior counsel's reliance on the petitioner's
previously approved nonimmigrant petition. The
AAO provided a thorough analysis of the job
description offered by prior counsel and found that
counsel's statements lacked credible and detailed
information about the beneficiary's actual daily job
duties. The AAO also noted, beyond the decision of
the director, that the petitioner failed to provide
sufficient evidence to establish that: (1) the
beneficiary was employed abroad in a qualifying
managerial or executive capacity; and (2) the
petitioner has a qualifying relationship with the
beneficiary's prior employer abroad.
On motion, the petitioner’s new counsel asks the
AAO to consider new evidence which he claims will
establish that the beneficiary's proposed position
with the U.S. entity is in a qualifying managerial or
executive capacity. Counsel offers the foreign
entity's trade license as a means of establishing
that the work the beneficiary performed abroad
was also in a qualifying managerial or executive
capacity. Counsel neither disputes nor addresses
the AAO's adverse finding with regard to the lack
of evidence showing a qualifying relationship
12

13.
between the petitioner and the beneficiary's foreign
employer. Therefore, the petitioner effectively
concedes to the AAO’s adverse finding on the issue
of a qualifying relationship.
Please read the rest of the decision for a
discussion of what types of “new” evidence
are prohibited from the agency’s
consideration at the stage.
APR012013_03B4203.pdf MOTION DISMISSED [TSC]
DISCUSSION: The preference visa petition was
initially approved by the Director, Texas Service
Center. Upon further review, a Notice of Intent to
Revoke (NOIR) was issued and the approval of
the petition. was ultimately revoked. The petitioner
appealed the matter to the Administrative
Appeals Office (AAO). The appeal was dismissed.
The matter is now before the AAO on motion to
reopen and reconsider. The motion will be
dismissed.
The petitioner is a Texas corporation that seeks to
employ the beneficiary in the United States as its
president. Accordingly, the petitioner endeavors to
classify the beneficiary as an employment-based
immigrant pursuant to section 203(b)(1)(C) of the
Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act),
8 U.S.C. § 1153(b)(1)(C), as a multinational
executive or manager.
The director revoked the approval of the visa
petition based on four independent grounds of
ineligibility. Specifically, the director found the
petitioner failed to establish: (1) that the
13

14.
beneficiary's proposed employment with the U.S.
entity would be in a qualifying managerial or
executive capacity; (2) that the beneficiary's
employment abroad was within a qualifying
managerial or executive capacity; (3) the existence
of a qualifying relationship with the foreign entity;
and (4) that the foreign company continues to
operate as a business abroad.
On appeal, the AAO found that the petitioner failed
to provide sufficient evidence to overcome the
director's decision on any of the four independent
grounds. Consequently, the AAO affirmed the
director's findings and dismissed the appeal.
* * * * *
Upon review, the petitioner's submission does not
meet the requirements of a motion to reopen or a
motion to reconsider.
APR012013_04B4203.pdf APPEAL DISMISSED [TSC]
The petitioner is a [REDACTED] that seeks to
employ the beneficiary as its director of business
development. Accordingly, the petitioner endeavors
to classify the beneficiary as an employment-based
immigrant pursuant to section 203(b)(1)(C) of
the Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act), 8
U.S.C. § 1153(b)(1)(C), as a multinational
executive or manager.
The director denied the petition concluding that
the petitioner did not establish it had the ability
to pay the proffered wage.
The petitioner subsequently filed an appeal. The
director declined to treat the appeal as a motion
14

15.
and forwarded the appeal to the AAO. On appeal,
counsel submits additional documentation
asserting that the petitioner has now demonstrated
an ability to pay the proffered wage. Counsel
provides a legal brief and additional evidence in
support of the appeal.
* * * * *
Finally; on appeal, counsel for petitioner asserts
that USCIS may consider evidence relevant to a
petitioner's financial ability that falls outside of a
petitioner's net income and net current assets
citing Matter of Sonegawa, 12 I&N Dec. at 612
(Reg'l Comm'r. 1967). Therefore, petitioner
submits documents reflecting current business
levels and anticipated profitability for 2012. The
petitioner indicates that it expects to increase
profits, hire new personnel, and increase salaries of
those currently employed. However, the petitioner
is a small company offering documentation
covering a very short period of time. A visa petition
may riot be approved based on speculation
of future eligibility ·or after the petitioner or
beneficiary becomes eligible under a new set of
facts. See Matter of Michelin Tire Corp., 17 I&N
Dec. 248 (Reg. Comm'r 1978); Matter of
Katigbak, 14 I&N Dec. 45,49 (Comm'r 1971).
Further, the totality of the circumstances affecting
the petitioning busi_ness will be considered if the
evidence warrants such consideration. See Matter
of Sonegawa, 12 I&N Dec. 612 (Reg. Comm'r
1967). In this matter, the evidence does not
warrant such consideration.
15

16.
APR022013_01B4203.pdf APPEAL DISMISSED [NSC]
The petitioner claims to be a California
corporation that seeks to employ the beneficiary in
the United States as its "CEO/CFO & Marketing
Director." Accordingly, the petitioner endeavors to
classify the beneficiary as an employment-based
immigrant pursuant to section 203(b)(1)(C) of the
Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act), 8
U.S.C. § 1153(b)(1)(C), as a multinational executive
or manager.
* * * * *
After considering the petitioner's response ...[to an
RFE]..., the director determined that the petitioner
failed to establish that the beneficiary would be
employed in the United States iri a qualifying
managerial or executive capacity. The director
determined that the petitioner submitted a
deficient job description lacking in adequate
information about the beneficiary's actual daily
tasks. The director also determined that the
beneficiary would oversee the work of outside sales
personnel, whom the director deemed as
non-professional employees. The director
incorporated his findings in a denial dated June 13,
2012.
On appeal, counsel provides a brief disputing the
director's adverse findings. Counsel asserts that the
director placed undue emphasis on the size of the
petitioner's staff while neglecting to consider the
petitioner's reasonable needs as well as its overall
purpose and stage of development. Counsel asserts
that the beneficiary's position title does not
incorporate the term manager, but rather that of
director, claiming that the two terms are distinct.
16

17.
Counsel asserts that the director functions within
an executive capacity where he allocates his time
primarily to qualifying executive tasks.
After having reviewed the record and considered
counsel's statements on appeal, the AAO finds that
counsel's assertions are not persuasive in
overcoming the basis for denial. The discussion
below will address points that are deemed relevant
to the petitioner's burden of proof in this matter.
The above highlighted sentence should
have you clicking on the link by now.
Get moving!
APR022013_02B4203.pdf MOTION DISMISSED [TSC]
DISCUSSION: The preference visa petition was
initially approved by the Director, Vermont Service
Center. Upon further review of the record, the
Director, Texas Service Center, determined that
the petitioner was not eligible for the benefit
sought. Accordingly, the director properly served
the petitioner with a notice of his intention to
revoke the approval of the preference visa petition,
and his reasons therefore. The director ultimately
revoked the approval of the petition and the
petitioner subsequently filed an appeal with the
Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) where the
appeal was summarily. dismissed. The matter is
now before the AAO on motion to reopen. The AAO
will dismiss the petitioner's motion.
The petitioner claimed to be a wholesale, retail,
and investment operation seeking to employ the
beneficiary as its president. Accordingly, the
17

18.
petitioner endeavors to classify the beneficiary as
an employment-based immigrant pursuant to
section 203(b)1I)(C) of the Immigration and
Nationality Act (the Act), 8 U.S.C. § 1153(b)(1)(C),
as a multinational executive or manager. The
director revoked the petition, concluding that
the petitioner failed to establish that: (1) the
beneficiary was employed abroad in a qualifying
managerial or executive capacity; (2) the
beneficiary's proposed position with the U.S. entity
would be in a managerial or executive capacity;
and (3) the petitioner continues to do business in
the United States. Additionally, as a result of the
beneficiary's interview at the New York District
Office, the director found that the petitioner
submitted inconsistent evidence and thus
concluded that the evidence was unreliable and
insufficient for the purpose of establishing
eligibility.
AAO once again goes on to “school” counsel
about basic MTR requirements and the
meaning of the word “new”.
APR022013_03B4203.pdf MOTION DISMISSED [NSC]
The petitioner is 'a California corporation that
seeks to employ the beneficiary as its vice
president. Accordingly, the petitioner endeavors to
classify the beneficiary as an employment-based
immigrant pursuant to section 203(b)(1)(C) of the
Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act), 8
U.S.C. § 1153(b)(1)(C), as a multinational executive
or manager. The director denied the petition
concluding that the petitioner failed to establish
that the beneficiary was employed in a managerial
or executive capacity.
18

19.
The petitioner appealed the denial disputing the
denial. The AAO dismissed the appeal affirming
the director's original conclusion-that the
petitioner failed to establish that the beneficiary
was employed abroad in a qualifying managerial or
executive· capacity-and making three additional
findings beyond the director's decision. First, the
AAO concluded that the petitioner provided a
deficient job description and organizational
chart pertaining to the benefiCiary's proposed
employment with the petitioning entity, thus
failing to establish that the beneficiary would be
employed in a qualifying managerial or executive
capacity in her proposed pos1t10n. Second, the
AAO concluded that the petitioner failed to provide
evidence showing that the petitioner met the initial
filing requirement specified at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(j)
(3)(i)(D), which requires the petitioner to establish
that it had been doing business for at least one year
prior to filing the Form I-140. And third, the AAO
found that the petitioner failed to provide evidence
of its continued business activity abroad, thus
precluding an affirmative finding that the
petitioner continues to fit the definition of a
multinational organization.
On motion to reopen, counsel attempts to
overcome the grounds for the AAO's decision,
offering a supplemental brief which contains an
additional percentage breakdown pertaining to the
beneficiary's employment with the foreign entity.
as well as job descriptions of the beneficiary!s
direct subordinates. Counsel also contends that the
foreign entity continues to do business and that the
petitioner had been doing business for the
requisite one-year period prior to filing the Form
19

20.
I-140. Counsel offers non-binding and
nonprecedent decisions in support of her assertions
and asks the AAO to consider the following
documents as new evidence:
You will have to read the actual decision to
parse the evidence considerations along
with AAO. Doing so will only help you to
avoid the same mistakes!
APR022013_04B4203.pdf 2nd APPEAL REJECTED [NSC]
The first motion was Summarily Dismissed
and therefore, the Motion option is limited.
This petition checked the wrong box!
You only get ONE administrative appeal.
After that it must be a Motion and then it
must actually qualify as one.
APR292013_01B4203.pdf 2nd APPEAL REJECTED [TSC]
The petitioner seeks appellate review of the AAO's
own decision. There is no statutory or regulatory
provision that permits the petitioner to file more
than one appeal before the AAO with regard to the
same petition. See 8 C.F.R. § 103.3(a)(l)(ii). The
authority to adjudicate appeals is delegated to the
AAO by the Secretary of the Department of
Homeland Security (DHS) pursuant to the
authority vested in him through the Homeland
Security Act of 2002, Pub. L. 107-296. See DHS
Delegation Number 0150.1 (effective March 1,
2003); see also 8 C.F.R. § 2.1 (2003). The AAO
exercises appellate jurisdiction over the matters
described at 8 C.F.R. § 103.1(f)(3)(iii) (as in effect
20

21.
on February 28, 2003), with one exception-
petitions for approval of schools under§ 214.3 are
now the responsibility of Immigration and
Customs Enforcement (ICE). The AAO does not
exercise appellate jurisdiction over its own
decisions. Accordingly, the appeal is not properly
within the AAO's jurisdiction.
21